Is is great to see a 512kbit upload speed. I won't get too excited
until I see what the caps are, if they are still a joke and set at 10
gigs or something silly.
Again it is just telecom doing the bare minimum to escape regulation of
course.

"Nova" <> wrote in message news:43ef9898$...
> Fred Dagg wrote:
>> Finally Telecom are allowing a ADSL plan with a reasonable upload
>> speed, to be ready by April 1st:
>>
>> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/0A43C597ACCCD7B6CC25711000701FA4
>
> Is is great to see a 512kbit upload speed. I won't get too excited until
> I see what the caps are, if they are still a joke and set at 10 gigs or
> something silly.
> Again it is just telecom doing the bare minimum to escape regulation of
> course.

"The Other Guy" <> wrote in message
news:1uMHf.144393$...
> Fred Dagg wrote:
>> Finally Telecom are allowing a ADSL plan with a reasonable upload
>> speed, to be ready by April 1st:
>>
>> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/0A43C597ACCCD7B6CC25711000701FA4
>
> Upstream of 512kbs^-1 on their 3.5Mbs^-1 service only. This will be
> expensive, and subject to the same low caps as their other UBS offerings.
>
> We need uncapped data on the Telecom lines more than we need higher
> speeds.
>
> The Other Guy

Well, I think higher speeds are 'as' important.

Telecom they are very secretive not to release the entire package details.

"jedmeister" <> wrote in message
news:NAOHf.144426$...
>
> "The Other Guy" <> wrote in message
> news:1uMHf.144393$...
>> Fred Dagg wrote:
>>> Finally Telecom are allowing a ADSL plan with a reasonable upload
>>> speed, to be ready by April 1st:
>>>
>>> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/0A43C597ACCCD7B6CC25711000701FA4
>>
>> Upstream of 512kbs^-1 on their 3.5Mbs^-1 service only. This will be
>> expensive, and subject to the same low caps as their other UBS offerings.
>>
>> We need uncapped data on the Telecom lines more than we need higher
>> speeds.
>>
>> The Other Guy
>
> Well, I think higher speeds are 'as' important.
>
> Telecom they are very secretive not to release the entire package details.
>
> For each new plan, I want to know....
>
> 1. upstream/downstream speeds
> 2. Service level 'ping times, both within NZ and overseas. UBS introduces
> 'lag' according to some punters.
> 3. Data Cap limits.
> 4. Service level agreement up-time.
>
>
I should add...

When I saw the discussion here, I immediately thought - Orcon will be
all over this, bugger.

Go to the article, 4th paragraph is about Orcon

"Orcon, one of the ISPs that have been pushing hard for government moves
to give Telecom a rocket, has come out to say that it would be happy
with Telecom's offer and accepting it would mean we'd get faster
internet by April 1. The alternative, they say, would be a long wait
while the government and the telco engaged in a protracted and expensive
legal battle -- while users were stuck at current speeds."

Of course they would be happy, it is a quick fix, they just take their
margin and move on; they aren't going to care if the plan is the best
that can be achieved, because there are so few alternatives.

While I expected Orcon to to support these new plans, I'm amazed at how
quickly they jumped on board. Frankly, it is almost embarrassing. If
Orcon ever change the 256Kb UBS "pseudo unlimited" plan, I'm gone.

Telecom aren't offering 512K up because their customers want it, they
are offering it because higher ADSL speeds won't work without it; and at
the same time are trying to stall regulation.

And note they aren't going to offer it on 2Mb/s plans, either, which a
lot of people have moved to (mostly regretting it, it seems). Maybe
Telecom figures they'll move to 3.5Mb/s plans instead.

That 200Mb cap plan looks real attractive - why would you even bother
with broadband if you are only using that much data?

Broadband for the masses, which is the major issue, should be 256K/128K,
500MB with capping to 64K over this, $29.95. No ISP in NZ offers that,
or anything like it, because, presumably, Telecom won't countenance it.

A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 12:03:19 +1300, Nik Coughlin wrote:
>>A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>>> There is no good reason why All towns and cities within New Zealand
>>> cannot have full-speed, uncapped, unrestricted, flat-rate,
>>> affordable DSL.
>>
>> Yes there is, shareholder dividends.
>
> That's not a good reason.
>
> Yes, of course Telecom should not be in a situation where it does not
> make a profit out of providing broadband internet access.
>
> And that profit should not be extortionate.

It's a very good reason, just so long as you look at it from Telecom's point
of view.

I'm not Telecom, so I don't personally find it to be an agreeable reason,
but it is still a good reason.

The purpose of Telecom is to make as much money as possible, nothing else.
Nothing. If they thought that they could increase their profits by selling
their own dear grandmothers to the glue factory, doubtless they would.

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:30:39 +1300, Nik Coughlin wrote:
> The purpose of Telecom is to make as much money as possible, nothing else.
> Nothing. If they thought that they could increase their profits by
> selling their own dear grandmothers to the glue factory, doubtless they
> would.

Wrong!

The purpose of Telecom... of telecomms corporations... is to provide
communications infrastructure for those who want it, and to do so in a
manner that generates a *reasonable* return on the investment involved.

Telecom does not exist in isolation. It provides an essential utility to
our community.

A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Every major worm other than the original Morris Worm from 1988 has leveraged
a hole in Microsoft products.

"A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:30:39 +1300, Nik Coughlin wrote:
>
>> The purpose of Telecom is to make as much money as possible, nothing
>> else.
>> Nothing. If they thought that they could increase their profits by
>> selling their own dear grandmothers to the glue factory, doubtless they
>> would.
>
> Wrong!
>
> The purpose of Telecom... of telecomms corporations... is to provide
> communications infrastructure for those who want it, and to do so in a
> manner that generates a *reasonable* return on the investment involved.
>
> Telecom does not exist in isolation. It provides an essential utility to
> our community.
>
>
> A Nice Cup of Tea

No, *maximum* return. Any less than maximum is not acceptable to
shareholders.

-=rjh=- wrote:
> Fred Dagg wrote:
>> Finally Telecom are allowing a ADSL plan with a reasonable upload
>> speed, to be ready by April 1st:
>>
>> http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/NL/0A43C597ACCCD7B6CC25711000701FA4
>
> When I saw the discussion here, I immediately thought - Orcon will be
> all over this, bugger.
>
> Go to the article, 4th paragraph is about Orcon

Oops, article I was referring to was not the one above, it was http://aardvark.co.nz/, my bad. Comments still stand, though.
>
> "Orcon, one of the ISPs that have been pushing hard for government moves
> to give Telecom a rocket, has come out to say that it would be happy
> with Telecom's offer and accepting it would mean we'd get faster
> internet by April 1. The alternative, they say, would be a long wait
> while the government and the telco engaged in a protracted and expensive
> legal battle -- while users were stuck at current speeds."
>
> Of course they would be happy, it is a quick fix, they just take their
> margin and move on; they aren't going to care if the plan is the best
> that can be achieved, because there are so few alternatives.
>
> While I expected Orcon to to support these new plans, I'm amazed at how
> quickly they jumped on board. Frankly, it is almost embarrassing. If
> Orcon ever change the 256Kb UBS "pseudo unlimited" plan, I'm gone.
>
> Telecom aren't offering 512K up because their customers want it, they
> are offering it because higher ADSL speeds won't work without it; and at
> the same time are trying to stall regulation.
>
> And note they aren't going to offer it on 2Mb/s plans, either, which a
> lot of people have moved to (mostly regretting it, it seems). Maybe
> Telecom figures they'll move to 3.5Mb/s plans instead.
>
> That 200Mb cap plan looks real attractive - why would you even bother
> with broadband if you are only using that much data?

On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:59:03 +1300, jedmeister wrote:
>
> "A Nice Cup of Tea" <> wrote in message
> news...
>> On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:30:39 +1300, Nik Coughlin wrote:
>>
>>> The purpose of Telecom is to make as much money as possible, nothing
>>> else.
>>> Nothing. If they thought that they could increase their profits by
>>> selling their own dear grandmothers to the glue factory, doubtless they
>>> would.
>>
>> Wrong!
>>
>> The purpose of Telecom... of telecomms corporations... is to provide
>> communications infrastructure for those who want it, and to do so in a
>> manner that generates a *reasonable* return on the investment involved.
>>
>> Telecom does not exist in isolation. It provides an essential utility to
>> our community.
>
> No, *maximum* return. Any less than maximum is not acceptable to
> shareholders.

Why no maximum return?

The maximum return possible for an essential utility should be
"reasonable" in the eyes of the community at large - and no more - because
of the role that essential utility plays in the life of our country.

A Nice Cup of Tea

--
Buffer overflow attacks. By flooding a program with too much data, a hacker
can track and manipulate the overflow and trick the system into following his
instructions as if he were the sysadmin. The technique has been known for
decades, yet Microsoft still hasn't come up with a way to defend against it.

In article <>, says...
> That 200Mb cap plan looks real attractive - why would you even bother
> with broadband if you are only using that much data?

Got it in one. I'm not going to bother with broadband, because dialup
can still give me that with no excess data charges. I don't get many
incoming calls on my phone line, and a $100 box with call waiting
service tells me when someone is calling and disconnects the modem
automatically. With a download manager you can then resume the download
as soon as the connection can be restored.

What would be worthwhile is a $29.95 plan with at least 500 MB and no
excess data charge, going down to 64K over the cap, 256K.

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!